About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
a single question, what are you willing to give. you know, when john boehner appears, they say are you willing to accept higher rates. no one says what are you going to do about entitlements or anything, there's no question of the president whether he will compromise and what that would look like. >> paul: steve, what do you think the republicans ought to do here? is there a way out for them or are they going to be pushed back into a corner where they have no choice, but to concede that they have to raise tax rates or else go over the cliff and get blamed for that? >> well, it's a tough situation for them. there's no question about it because as you know, the default position, if we don't do anything is for the taxes to go up on everybody on january 1st, and that's something i think both sides want to avoid. it's very interesting, the thing that happened this week to start the week, was who was the first person that barack obama met with in the white house since his election, the labor unions, the labor block, that tells a lot who is driving policy at least at the start of the second t
-like reaction, not a cliff-like reaction, and the leaders of wall street will help john boehner to make a better deal rather than pressuring him to make a deal that's bad for the economy and the fear that we don't get a deal will lead to getting a deal because the pressure correctly applied. >> the issue here is will we go over the cliff? i stopped saying cliff. sorry. okay, okay. but i think the question is do we get to the grassy gradual slope or not and then level roonlg. this is the first time since 2010 that's obama's had the leverage with republicans and saying there, you mentioned that poll yesterday adding to the leverage because, voters, you think to go over this so-called cliff and referring to the nervousness. who will you blame? >> republicans. >> republicans. that's more leverage of obama on that question and look at. yeah, he didn't draw that red line as krystal said at the beginning but as close to be an absolutist for incomes over $250,000 as he can be. this is an issue that he ran on. this bothers him ruled by republicans two years ago and taxes are not where they should be hist
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
a guy before i worked for romney i worked for boehner in the majority leader officer, i called up the digital guy tell me about twitter. how it's going work. he said you don't need to know it. it's not a big thing. here we're now, i notice during the campaign so much of what we did was driven from the bottom up through twitter. and -- even when i was on the plane. we would do the different gaggle. she would do it on a bigger plane. air force one. we call pear force one. i would got back of the plane and gaggle for fifteen or twint minutes. by the time i would come back i would come back on twitter and say it made news. >> people responded and taked you on twitter. >> when you say people you don't mean people you mean reporters. >> or people. [laughter] reporters are not people. >> that was on the free to be you and me. the reporters are people. but you mean this was the kind of back stage conversation you were watching playout on twitter? sometimes real people. it was more important how the journalist were using twitter. >> yeah. it became a incredible news. you could see the jour
to study in the congress. >> deirdre walton, cnn, since the elections john boehner has been talking about what to negotiate a deal on the fiscal cliff and says he is open to new revenue and willingness to compromise. i was wondering what you think of his position on this, and if you are right to support him this afternoon? >> i do not know if you are here earlier when i spoke about the 10-1 deal. i want to see where they are willing to cut. olive heard is that the democrats are saying they are not willing to cut anything in. the president had a meeting last night with the labor unions, all of these separate liberal groups. and everyone of those groups to the president that he should not deliver anything on a reforms of our entitlement system, but you should insure the delivers a tax increase. i do not think they are open- minded in any way. i think we need to stop negotiating with ourselves. and we need to wait for the democrats to actually give us an offer that is a real serious offer. we need to stop speaking amongst ourselves. he won the presidency, let him lead. >> i believe that reve
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
it off track when there were in fact very close. i think boehner has been very clear. i think revenues are on the table. they are at the moment drawing a line on tax rates, but we will see where that goes. the last time, you are right, didn't work and we were not facing quite the same set of circumstances we are facing today so i'm cautiously optimistic although i will offer to say lastly that people sometimes say okay, it looks like simpson-bowles, everything in between zero and $4 trillion we could end up with all kinds of outcomes that may be less than i would like and maybe less than all of you would like but at least something. i'm hoping it is more over here but i don't know. >> and steve, so we are gathered here to talk about u.s. global competitiveness. how important is resolving these issues to the american position on the global economy? >> first of all i think it's important not just our position in the global comment about our position in the world. admiral mullen who was the previous chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said our greatest national security threat was our f
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)